[enraged_camel]

With all due respect, I don't really buy that narrative.

People often mistake critical thinking skills with close-mindedness. Just because someone uses thought and reason to reject an idea doesn't mean they are close-minded. Not all ideas deserve acceptance. I'm as open-minded as it gets, but if you tell me that vaccines cause autism then you will go down several notches in my book. (Ironically, there are many anti-vax people in the Bay Area!)

I don't know about Oviedo specifically (maybe it's a liberal haven in the middle of a conservative sea, like Austin TX), but I've known several Floridans from the more conservative parts of the state, and they were either naive and gullible as hell, or actually close-minded. I don't say that to stereotype the entire state, but it's worth remembering that conservatism is about the preservation of the status quo, and by definition it's not nearly as accepting of new (and valid) ideas and perspectives as liberalism is. That's not meant to be a value judgment, but rather a descriptive statement.

[pc2g4d]

Everybody you don't agree with is "close-minded". It's the fact that they can't seem to see the sense in your own position that makes them seem like such benighted fools. But they look at you in the same way. Unless you can accept that _to those people_ opposition to vaccines or whatever _does_ make a kind of sense, then I suggest you're being equally close-minded. You may be right, but your mind is not open to the sense in other people's worldviews.

The division of our society into ideological camps that point fingers at each other and can't see the others as basically-sensible human beings drives me crazy.

[muninn_]

Right, that's one of the things I have found my fellow liberals struggling with. They don't understand the state of mind of somebody who wants to maintain things how they are, "we like it here" and attribute that to being close-minded, racist, ignorant, whatever. Sometimes that's true, but often times it's not. For example, I'm quite bearish on immigration, for example (I won't get into it here unless asked), and among my fellow liberal friends it's something they don't understand and considered "close-minded" or "unaccepting" but what does being close-minded actually mean?

In my case, for example, I've thought about an issue and have drawn a conclusion based on the facts at hand. I'm very open to new perspectives and new ideas and often challenge people on their own preconceptions because I think it's valuable that people are challenged. But again, I'm not "close-minded", I've just drawn a different conclusion. People need to understand the difference and they largely don't.

[stmfreak]

That sort of "critical thinking" arrogance is what keeps people from sharing their different opinions and perspectives from your pompous ass.

[tunesmith]

Not sure why critical thinking is in quotes - critical thinking is a real thing. It's connecting conclusions with premises that lead to those conclusions, so that if someone else started with those premises, they'd also arrive at the same conclusions. It's not a different opinion or perspective, and it's not pompous - it's by definition something that can be shared across all opinions and perspectives.

[Veelox]

> if someone else started with those premises, they'd also arrive at the same conclusions

I like your definition of critical thinking, it also allows me to highlight why I agree with sideband. In the bay area there tends to be less acceptance for differing premises.

I am a conservative Christian and certain premises I bring to the conversation automatically make me "hateful" or "bigoted". While I have seen this most prominently in the religious/moral realm I see it in politics as well.

In the bay area there is a right set of premises and a wrong set. If you start with the wrong set it is acceptable to wholly reject the conclusions without engaging critically with why the premises are wrong.

[tunesmith]

Yes, I'm far from a conservative Christian but I appreciate that while some premises are fact, other premises are simply "values" ("should/ought" statements) that can vary from person to person. People can reason accurately towards different conclusions from those values. People should be able to debate/disagree respectfully about differing values, assuming there's a basic level of humanity in those values.

Of course, people can reason incorrectly, too. I think there's a set of people that disagree with the values, but there's another set of people that object to conclusions that appear inconsistent when compared to the premises/values they purportedly rest upon.

[Veelox]

> assuming there's a basic level of humanity in those values

I am not saying that you are this way, but I have had interactions that lead me to believe that reasoning allows some to wholly reject values I hold dear as "intolerant" without consideration, all in the name of tolerance. It comes across as comical in a tragic way.

On the flip side, I have had interactions where I was able have a disagreement and work backward to the differing values which we were able to agree to disagree on.

[tunesmith]

There are some deeply held values worldwide that are deeply offensive to others, that's for sure. For instance, there are those who earnestly believe that some class of humans is naturally inferior to others, or more genetically suited to servitude, etc.

The question of how or whether to limit some kinds of speech... I honestly think this is one of the great philosophical struggles of this generation. I am not sure why it has come up again when it seemed largely settled in the past. On the liberal side, you see people like Howard Dean and Elizabeth Warren disagree on it, which is a weird experience.

I think the question is, is there some set of underlying values where we can appropriately justify excluding someone entirely?

If the answer is yes, then how do you draw the line, and how do you protect against arbitrary lines being drawn against you in return? If the answer is no, then there's a whole host of other questions, like how do you deal with trolls?

I remember there was a great deal of consternation about Bill Nye debating Ken Ham, for instance. So many voices thought it was inappropriate. I thought the debate was a good thing.

On the other hand, I have a hard time accepting that trolling is protected speech. Heartfelt offensive speech I'm fine with, but trolling feels like a close cousin of fighting words, with intent only to destroy. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to tell the difference between trolling and heartfelt ignorance.

[DougN7]

When you see someone look down on another's thoughts because they aren't "critical thinking enough, you'll find someone (or a culture) that assumes they have all the facts, and have considered all possibilities. That is hubris.

I find people who are truly open don't hold so desperately to facts, because they tend to change over time.

[sofal]

The fact that this entire comment could have been written by (for example) a flat-earther in response to criticism of their flat-earth beliefs makes it difficult to understand what kind of "facts" you are disappointed that people hold so dearly to, and what kind of facts you believe change over time. Depending on your response, I might agree entirely with you or disagree entirely. I understand that human knowledge is inherently fungible, and therefore sometimes what we previously understand as facts can change. However, that does not mean that I can decide that the Holocaust didn't happen, for example.

The truth is generally not up for interpretation by any person who feels it should be. Critical thinking is actually a thing, and the lack of it does actually result in believing false things. If someone told me that I'm not applying critical thinking, then my response would be to ask for specific details on what aspect of critical thinking I'm not applying and exactly where I'm getting things wrong. What I would not do is respond by criticizing the idea of critical thinking itself or tell them that they need to consider alternative facts.

[DougN7]

Flat earthers are derided now, but that wasn't always so. You might have been in that camp 500 years ago and been just as adamant then as you are now.

500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?)

Heck, maybe antibiotics do contribute to autism some how. I very much doubt it. But it would be hubris to assume I know absolutely everything there is to know about the human body, antibiotics, and all their interactions. So I disagree with anti-vaxxers, based on current evidence. But I won't dismiss them and consider them less intelligent.

[sofal]

Flat earthers are derided now, but that wasn't always so. You might have been in that camp 500 years ago and been just as adamant then as you are now.

We knew this 500 years ago too, but even if we didn't it would not have been rational to pretend to know the shape of our entire world without having evidence to back it up. All we would know is that it appears to be flat from our limited vantage point, and we were free to investigate further using various methods.

500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?)

500 years from now it will still be the case that light can behave like a particle and a wave depending on how you're measuring it. We may have better, more accurate models to explain the behavior of light in 500 years.

So I disagree with anti-vaxxers, based on current evidence. But I won't dismiss them and consider them less intelligent.

The reason that many people believe vaccines cause autism is because of a fraudulent study by Andrew Wakefield. Believing in a claim based an a proven fraud is not rational regardless of what is discovered in the future.

To put it generally, if you believe in claim X for bad reasons, and it later is discovered that X is true, it does not mean that you were retroactively acting rational for previously believing in claim X for bad reasons.

[charlesdm]

> But if you tell me that vaccines cause autism

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but have you researched this? My assumption is "no they don't" but it's actually an area I know very little about.

Looking at the whole discussion currently happening around glyphosate / Roundup, where extensive lobbying has been done by Monsanto to block out any negative reports from the public domain, I (personally) think a lot of things shouldn't just be disregarded as absolute nonsense (even if they, eventually are). Pharma companies are also not above extensive lobbying (look at Mylan and their EpiPen).

Autism rates have gone up during the last 20+ years. Why is this? It would be interesting to at least be able to figure out why, so you are able to rule out other things.

[pc86]

Not everyone needs to do scientific research and read peer-reviewed journal articles about every topic to come to a conclusion about it.

Until such time as reputable scientists start saying there is more than a tangential relationship between vaccination and autism, it's a pretty untenable position to have.

> Autism rates have gone up during the last 20+ years. Why is this?

Autism rates increasing doesn't mean there's more autism, it means there's more diagnosed autism. It could be that it was under-diagnosed in the past. It could be that it's actually increasing. It could be that it's simply being over-diagnosed now. I'm bracing for the backlash but I've met a dozen or so diagnosed autistic children and more than a few of them are just assholes or have parents looking for an easy way to not discipline their children.

[tluyben2]

> but I've met a dozen or so diagnosed autistic children and more than a few of them are just assholes or have parents looking for an easy way to not discipline their children.

Yes and same with ADHD, gluten intolerance and other 'diseases' that have gone up in the past 20 years while your annoying, anti social, always crying and shouting, only likes sugar child is just the result of lazy parenting and a general lack of tolerance to suffering at large.